How do we get a diary corrected?

OH-02: Jean Doesn't Know Schmidt about Noe - factcheck! is currently on the Daily Kos front page. The implied premise of the diary -- that official documents exist proving that Jean Schmidt and Thomas Noe were both present at two meetings together -- appears to be incorrect.  

The thread encourages Kos readers to spread the word in an effort to discredit the high-profile Schmidt campaign. I would be sorry to see the Daily Kos credited as a source of what I believe appears to be inaccurate information.

What is the best mechanism to quickly get alleged error(s) verified and a diary updated? I added my concerns with the supporting evidence in the comments section several hours ago. However, I am troubled by the likelihood that many readers will not take the time to read through the entire thread.

I would like to emphasize that I do not wish to be critical of the author of this diary in any way. I agree completely with the premise that Jean Schmidt is probably not being entirely forthcoming in her statements about Thomas Noe. And, like many of us, I have missed a detail or two when constructing an argument.

Here are my concerns

And , additional official state documents establish that Tom Noe testified before Jean Schmidt's committee on March 18, 2003.

Jean Schmidt was not on the Finance Higher Education Subcommitee when Thomas Noe addressed the committee on March 18, 2003. It was no longer Schmidt's committee.There is no reason to believe that Schmidt would have attended Noe's presentation. Consequently, this document does not link Noe and Schmidt.

See page 18 of the Jan/Feb 2003 directory. See March 6, 2003 committee listing at archive.org.

In fact, on March 21, 2002, official state documents prove Jean Schmidt testified before Tom Noe's committee. Tom Noe seconded and approved the minutes for this meeting

Noe is not listed as being present at the Communications Committee meeting where Schmidt made her presentation. He was not a member of the Communications Committee. Referring to it as Tom Noe's committee is misleading. Schmidt was not listed as attending the full Board of Regents meeting where the Communications Committee meeting was summarized.

Both of the statements citing the documents strongly imply that Schmidt and Noe were present at each other's meetings. I became extremely concerned when I observed downthread that the following information that I believed to be inaccurate was being distributed to the media:

She has had numerous contacts with Tom Noe and the public record shows it. Jean Schimdt testified before Tom Noe's Committee: http://www.regents.state.oh.us/bdmeet/apr02/32102.Minutes.pdf Tom Noe seconded the minutes so he was there: http://www.regents.state.oh.us/bdmeet/mar02/agd03212002.html#communications Tom Noe also testified before Jean Schmidt's Committee: http://www.regents.state.oh.us/legislative/3-18-2003_Noe%20.pdf

Distribution of such unsubstantiated claims to the media could have the unintended effect of injuring the Hackett campaign and undermining Daily Kos credibility.

I would also like to add that in my comments I did identify an August 12, 2002, hearing where there is a reasonable possibility that Noe and Schmidt were present in the same room. Minutes need to be located to confirm if they both were in attendance.

•  post a comment in the diary

  Post a comment in that particular diary explaining your concern. Seriously.

  by pine on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:05:32 PM PDT

  •  (S)he did. plenty of'em. (n/t)

    by brainwave on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:06:35 PM PDT

  •  As mkt said above,

    s/he did.

    However, I'd say you don't "get a diary corrected."

    Better would be to assemble all your concerns and evidence in a diary of your own, then hope that it gets widely read and recommended.

    This diary probably doesn't do the trick, because it doesn't restate or even link to the arguments you were making on the other thread.

    Lots of times, there will be a diary or story that is popular and well-received, and then other diaries or stories which take issue with the first one which are also popular and well-received.  No need to get the first deleted, however.

    by renaissance grrrl on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:08:41 PM PDT

    •  point well-taken

      I think the implication here is that as you say, "you don't get a diary corrected."

      Kossacks (whether they be regular users or front-pagers) can and do post updates or addendums to their own already-existing diaries from time-to-time to clarify or correct certain details. Mkt certainly has the right to express her concerns about the factual accuracy of the Schmidt diary, but ulitmately, the decision to make a "correction" lies with Bob Brigham (the author of that diary) or with Kos himself (and from what I've seen, Kos rarely intervenes in "correcting" or "deleting" diaries unless they contain particularly aggregious claims).

      by pine on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:23:16 PM PDT

•  Appears to be incorrect?

  What's your source? The front pagers will print a retraction if proven incorrect. They do have ethics.

  by Tomtech on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:05:35 PM PDT

•  You are wrong.

  The central premise of the diary -- that official documents exist proving that Jean Schmidt and Thomas Noe attended two meetings together -- appears to be incorrect.  

     Diarist never made any such claim. Why don't you read the diary again before accusing someone of propagating inaccurate information?

  by pursewarden on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:09:50 PM PDT

  •  correct

    Bob (emphasis mine):

    In fact, on March 21, 2002, official state documents prove Jean Schmidt testified before Tom Noe's committee. Tom Noe seconded and approved the minutes for this meeting

    <snip>

    And , additional official state documents establish that Tom Noe testified before Jean Schmidt's committee on March 18, 2003.

    The diary didn't claim that Schmidt attended Noe's testimony or Noe Schmidt's. However, Bob did claim  that Schmidt lied, and he implied that the above documents provide prove of that. And if it's true that the docs don't in fact demonstrate that Noe and Schmidt met and/or knew each other, then it's hard to see how they straightforwardly prove that Schmidt lied.

    by brainwave on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:19:46 PM PDT

  •  I politely disagree

    The diary opens:

    Official state documents prove candidate covered-up ties to corruption
    

    It continues.

    In fact, on March 21, 2002, official state documents prove Jean Schmidt testified before Tom Noe's committee...

    And , additional official state documents establish that Tom Noe testified before Jean Schmidt's committee on March 18, 2003.
    

    I'm not sure I follow your objection. What have I gotten wrong?
    

    by mkt on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:21:46 PM PDT

    •  Diarist never

      claimed that two attended meetings together. Edit your diary and then lay out the case.

      by pursewarden on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:26:26 PM PDT

      •  I understand your objection to my language

        I had used the verb "attended" to mean "were present at". I see how you could have interpreted my sentence to imply that they had come to the meetings together. I apologize for my lack of clarity.

        I will update the diary to clarify this statement.

        by mkt on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:38:49 PM PDT

        •  that wasn't the point at all

          What you're missing is that Bob never claimed the docs prove that Schmidt was at Noe's testimony or Noe at Schmidt's. However you do have a point in that Bob quite clearly must have thought that the docs show this.

          by brainwave on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:45:19 PM PDT

•  I think this needs looking into

  so I'm recommending this. It was starting to bother me that hardly anybody was responding to your posts on Bob's diary. It would be nice if you could post your sources. Also: if it's true that Schmidt didn't attend Noe's testimony before her committee, and Noe didn't attend Schmidt's testimony before his, then isn't that remarkable in and of itself? I mean, what's going on here? These characters are from the same friggin' state, are they not? And anyway, if Schmidt maintains that she hadn't even heard of Noe she's still suffering from that wellknown Repubnesia syndrome...

  by brainwave on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:11:21 PM PDT

  •  We need a higher standard

    I completely agree. There are a number of claims in the diary, and some indeed do depend on them having actually met previously. It is true she feigned more ignorance of Noe than was realisitically possible, but let's not pass on allegations uncritically. Isn't that one of the distinctions between us and them that we want to maintain?

    by MarkC on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:23:08 PM PDT

•  The Number one thing Dkos is Great at

  is Truth and setting the facts and record straight. If indeed, you feel that there is misinformation being put out I would write a diary that has the Proof and correct information. Once done, Armando can update the front page diary with an Update. However I would really check the wording and facts in the diary that you dispute. We have several people on the Ground in Ohio, Perhaps they will post soon and you can check data with them. Regardless I am 100% positive this Bag of hot air Republican Bush/Reagan Talking points has met the Liar in question. Local politics...they all know each other. Even National Politics they do, just certain people Cheney have select memories.

  by Chamonix on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:32:21 PM PDT

•  What you believe?

  Thanks, very convincing.

  Here's a hint - give me some fucking basis for your belief and then you might have basis for this diary.

  Right now, I think it is a horrible diary unless you say why.

  It is a baseless smear as it is, worse than even an incorrect FP post might be.

  Spit it out.

  by Armando on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:36:12 PM PDT

  •  As I understand your objection

    I find it baseless and this diary rather annoying.

    So, your question is answered in this way, not in the manner you have gone about it.

    by Armando on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:43:36 PM PDT

    •  Question for you

      Are you going to correct THIS diary?

      by Armando on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:49:55 PM PDT

      •  Are you making this criticism

        after reading the diarist's comments in Brigham diary?  I thought he did a conscientious job of reviewing the minutes in question, and his concerns were valid.  

        by sharman on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 03:53:26 PM PDT

        •  The diarist's concerns seem genuine

          S/he is just looking out for this community and blogosphere at large to make sure misinformation isn't being put out there mistakenly.  The approach was low key, very polite, and almost apologetic.  

          I don't have access to Ohio government meeting minutes and attendance lists.  Apparently the diarist does.  I'm thinking we should be grateful for the concern and should check into it just to make sure.  You can bet the Cincinnati Enquirer and WKRC Channel 12 will.  

          by busternjake on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 04:24:48 PM PDT

          •  I'm with you totally

            I was so proud of this website, so quickly getting to the truth, even if the truth was not juicy stuff for our team.

            My comment was directed to Armando, who posted multiple times demanding the diarist retract his criticism because he'd posted no proofs.  Seemed to me that Armando just failed to read the fellow's comments in the first diary, where he does lay it all out.

            Retraction Armando?

            by sharman on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 04:47:12 PM PDT

  •  My apologies

    ...for not responding sooner. I was in the process of transfering a summary of my comments from the other diary.

    As I indicated in the diary, I did not wish to be critical of anyone. I was concerned that individuals were being encouraged to distribute information that appeared to be misleading and inaccurate. I have cited an example that was sent to the media in the updated diary.

    by mkt on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 04:31:16 PM PDT